If the statement is actually scientific and not someone making philosophical claims, then “random” should refer to things for which our best model is probabilistic. It also can refer to a lack of correlation between two factors. In the case of genetics, mutations are random both in the sense of a probabilistic model and in the sense that whether a particular change in DNA happens is not related to whether it would be useful.
Additionally, “random” is typically a component of the null hypothesis. Unless you have sufficient statistical confidence that your hypothesis is better supported than the expectation for random variations, you can’t affirm that your idea is adequately supported. That is often misinterpreted as having proved that something is random. But to do that, you would need to show strong statistical confidence in the other direction, not merely failing to adequately prove that it wasn’t random.
“This doesn’t help me to understand whether a scientist is in fact saying a remarkable series of events is unintended”
Science is not particularly able to address that question in an interesting way. The forces of nature have no intents of their own; that is all that science can say. Whether God has an intent for that series of events is not scientifically determinable. It’s a bit like the fact that you could do all sorts of analyses on the electrons transmitting this message without gaining any understanding of the meaning of the message. A biblical example would be the Aramean archer who killed Ahab - the archer thought he was shooting at random, but Micaiah had prophesied that Ahab wouldn’t come back alive and the arrow hit right at the vulnerable spot in Ahab’s armor.
My question or issue is with what the scientist means by saying the events are random. I get that the events have no apparent purpose in themself. Like that quote I mentioned earlier with the guitarist and the tremolo piece.
Can science say an uncaused event is unexplainable? Which also curiously relates to science being able say an indeterminate event is random.
Science is limited to being able to say that certain events do not have well-supported scientific explanations at present. Of course, as far as science goes, “random” may be a component of a reasonably good explanation, such as “which of these radioactive atoms will decay during the next half-life”?
What a scientist means by saying something is random depends on if it is an accurate scientific assessment, in which case it would mean that it is unpredictable in certain ways, or a philosophical assertion, in which case they may mean any number of things, probably not something that was well thought through.
Undoubtedly so. Science isn’t in a position to determine whether an event is caused or uncasued in certain instances. But it should be able to I say, looking ahead, if the event is uncaused, then it would be unexplainable.
Which may well be a quantum phenomenon, but is it that way as a caused or uncaused happening… I’m open to either possibility
Radioactive decay is not fundamental, so it is caused and we have a decent description of the causing in terms of applicable fields and behaviors. That, however, just further pushes the edge of understanding. We can describe the forces with the standard model, but ultimately we do not have a scientific explanation of what “causes” them, or what “caused” something to exist rather than nothing.
From what I have seen, you confuse yourself. You seem to have a definition that you want scientists to use, and when they don’t use your definition you seem to get your wires crossed. You also seem to ignore causes because you want to talk about uncaused events. You are a hammer, and all you see is nails.
The definition of random used with mutations is really simple. The causes of mutations do not seem to be influenced by what the organism needs in a given environment. That is, if a mutation would be beneficial its chances of occurring are not increased just because it would be beneficial.
You can think of it as a card game, like poker for example. If you need a 5 of Diamonds to fill out an inside straight flush you do not have an increased chance of drawing that card just because you need it. The process of shuffling the deck is random with respect to the quality of your hand in the same way that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Appearances is as far as science goes. The scientific method makes no metaphysical or ontological claims about randomness, only that what we observe is indistinguishable from what we would expect to see if a process is random. Really, that’s the best any of us can do.
No more so than any other chemical reaction. If you are willing to accept that there is a cause for 2H2 + O2 —> 2H2O then the same cause is responsible for mutations.
So DNA replication is no different than forming water from hydrogen and oxygen. Are you now going to go on and on about water formation being uncaused? Is there anything you would consider to be caused?
Say what? I would have guessed you could draw a better understanding of the quantum relation to the structural formation of palladium that makes it function as an attractor for hydrogen atoms
